fred rogers would be proud of ms rachel. nobody carries on his legacy more than her <3
That got me super curious, and I found this about the Mr. Rogers and Ms. Rachel connection.
That explains so much but also idk why it felt like a revalation. She’s an American my age, a ton of us did, especially the ones of us who share his values.
I’m glad kids have an influencer like her. Mr Rogers did a lot of good for my early moral development.
A Christian following Christian teachings!?
No no, she’s clear that this is because of Jesus, not Christian teachings.
Which makes sense, cause Christian teachings are typically what Paul says, not Jesus.
then why do people keep saying “Simon says”???
Who is “Paul”
Went by Saul then broke some laws and had to change his identity
No I’m serious. I’m not super familiar with this stuff. I know Mary is the mom of Jesus, but is Paul the dad or something?
Only slightly joking there. He was Saul of Tarsus, a Jewish Pharisee and persecuted early Christians. He had a conversion and became an early Christian leader. He was one of the first to include gentiles in Christianity. Before it was mostly Jewish people well because Jesus was Jewish. The law breaking joke is that in a vision he was given the ok to eat all foods not just kosher ones, ie he broke religious laws at the time Edit: I misremembered, it was Peter who had the food vision not Paul. But I believe Peter also changed his name, yes he was Simon. Never thought about it much but man they changed their names a lot back then.
He changed his name to Paul after converting. wiki article if you are inclined to read up on your own https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_the_Apostle
Key Bible verses are (iirc): Acts 8.1, 9.1-31. And Romans, which is a letter to the Christians in Rome. And Corinthians, letters he wrote to Christians in Corinth.
So he was born 5 years after Jesus died, but saw Jesus die or something, and spent his whole life telling people how awesome Jesus was and to read these books he wrote…?
Funny you mention parents, after the death of Jesus his parents don’t come up. Or rarely. His father is barely mentioned after the birth story.
no, its like joesph or some guy that starts with a j
the apostle paul is a major component of the new testament as, canonically to the catholic church, he was the first pope and his letters giving theological advice to early roman churches are the backbone of catholic teachings. however, most biblical scholars find the epistles canonized as the pauline texts to be disjointed, and likely a mishmash of paul’s writing, other authors writing as paul, and even marginalia that simply made it into the bible as paul’s teachings, even if they actually contradict other things he said
Peter was canonically the first pope, not Paul.
ah! my mistake. i get this stuff mixed up sometimes
He was also a massive incel if you go by the writings.
the romans didn’t convert to christianity. they converted christianity to romanism
I know a guy named Paul, he used to be my plumber.
He was prematurely bald and moved to Pittsburgh last summer.
He also had bladder problems and a really bad infection on his toe
How DARE she Utter such UnChristlike Nonsense like TREAT PEOPLE WITH RESPECT and STOP MURDERING CHILDREN! She’s HORRIBLE!
I may be stupid, but this is right in my uncanny-valley for Poe’s Law
I can guarantee you that that comment was made in jest.
Removed by mod
It’s so funny cause I don’t really know much about her other than she makes children’s content and Republicans can’t stand her. But literally every single time I hear why Republicans are pissed at her it’s just because she said something like “let’s try and not be assholes to each other” or something lol
All she did was talk about Palestinian children who were being murdered and marred by Israel and how it’s bad. That’s literally it.
They pretend to worship a guy who was like “love your neighbour, turn the other cheek, rich people will most certainly all go to hell”, and who was famously crusified for that.
And even by the biblical telling the Romans were less hateful than contemporary republicans pride themselves in being.
Its… Really something. Imagine what an absurd shitshow the bible would be like if the events took place in contemporary America.
Your last line would be a killer speculative fiction novel if done right. I wonder if anyone’s tried it
I think there’s a certain element of open defiance at this point. Every bit the “Keep booing losers, you know I’m right”
Your boos mean nothing, I’ve seen what makes your cheer
She says
“Hurtful videos and comments, no matter how much attention they get, will not bring you want you want. Only love can do that.”
Which is what she was asked on tv.
Christianity is in a pretty sad state when you’re absolutely shocked to see a Christian behaving like an actual Christian.
My first thought was: “Boy, are christians gonna be pissed when they see this christian acting like a christian.”
Edit: No. Bad autocorrect, bad! That stays lowercase until they behave.
“Hurtful videos and comments, no matter how much attention they get, will not bring you want you want. Only love can do that.”
Well said, very well said.
Ms Rachel doesn’t miss
A surprise to be sure, but a welcome one.
Oh look, a Christian who actually read their magic book.
Fuck that stupid book.
I’ve always found it ridiculous that a cult would be so hellbent on making its numbers smaller
Cults grow specifically because there’s an out-group they exclude, so that by joining the cult, you can feel superior to the out-group. It’s an incredibly effective tactic that’s been working basically since the dawn of organized religion.
Religion is another form of tribalism.
But the out group is typically just “non members”. They are the ones deciding gays are in that group. There are plenty of stupid people under the rainbow. We aren’t special.
Although I appreciate her and her sentiment, this changes nothing that the big Ambrahamic religions stand fundamentally opposed to the existence of LGBTQ+ people. To a point of justifying genocide against them.
The only realistic solution to ensure the equality and safety of LGBTQ+ people (and more) is the elimination of organized religion.
Religion is a cancer, and needs to be eradicated through education that specifically analyzes it and destroys it with logic and reasoning.
It seems the only ones fundamentally opposed to their very existence are the ones who see in only black and white terms. That either you’re good or you’re bad. This is mostly evangelists who gain power by tricking people into believing the opposite of deep-seated religious tradition.
This is a problem of con-men abusing established infrastructure, not necessarily organized religion itself. Getting rid of the religion does not get rid of the con-men, just forces them to make a new one (Scientology/Mormon anyone?) or use a different strategy.
Perhaps try and see things in a less black and white way and you might find an actual solution instead of a boogie man you can point to and say “They’re causing all our problems! We should burn them at the stake!”
Religion is fundamentally an irrational belief. The acceptance of wild and complex ideas with absolutely zero evidence to back them up.
We see how this translates to conditioning the masses to accept authoritarian rule and propaganda without question from countless far-right movements.
I wasn’t insulting the religious themselves, I view them as victims of the manipulation of those in their environment who spread the cancer to them. What I said is entirely a criticism of religion and a desire to see it forever removed from society so that everyone is forced to live in the reality they exist in, rather than the fantasies of folks long dead.
the big Ambrahamic religions stand fundamentally opposed to the existence of LGBTQ+ people
Setting aside the navel gazing “um actually if you translate the Greek properly…” nerd theology, the big religions only seem to care when reactionary secular leaders care.
Hostility to homosexuality isn’t a product of religion, it’s a product of socio-economic in-groups and out-groups. Same with misogyny, ethnic bigotry, and xenophobia. You’ll find all the same reactionary tendencies among secular atheists as sectarian dogmatics. And the same progressive attitudes, as well.
Religion is downstream of politics. Always has been
i don’t know if religion is bad so much as zealotry (aware of the irony of my name; but that’s a play on critical role and jester) the place i felt most accepted growing up queer was my family church an summer camp. my childhood pastor was one of the first people to write me and both congratulate and comfort me while also apologising for the national church’s recent stances (a few years ago). granted it was a new england methodist church so i realize my privilge but still
My response, with respect, is that religion is always ever just a small walk away from fundamentalism and zelotry.
I’m sure you and countless billions have had wonderful experiences within an environment that happened to be religious. However, I would strongly disagree that the presence of religion in that environment was a fundamental requirement for the positive sides of those events to happen.
All benefits one can point to of religion can just as easily be present in secular settings as well.
My response, with respect, is that religion is always ever just a small walk away from fundamentalism and zealotry.
Billions currently live and have lived their religious lives without falling down this purported slippery slope which takes away from this point.
I would strongly disagree that the presence of religion in that environment was a fundamental requirement for the positive sides of those events to happen.
What secular equivalent is there to Christmas, Easter, Eid, Ramadan, Holi, Diwali etc? Why has no secular tradition been able to produce days of collective joy or reflection in a similar vein?
All benefits one can point to of religion can just as easily be present in secular settings as well.
Except happiness. Which according to the Pew Research Center is more common among the religious, for whatever reason.
Billions currently live and have lived their religious lives without falling down this purported slippery slope which takes away from this point.
This does nothing to take away from my point. If you’d want to argue against my point, you’d need to show a solid barrier between typical moderate religious beliefs and fundamentalism/zealotry.
I attest no such barrier exists outside of simple circumstances in which one hasn’t lead the believer to the other… yet.
What secular equivalent is there to Christmas, Easter, Eid, Ramadan, Holi, Diwali etc? Why has no secular tradition been able to produce days of collective joy or reflection in a similar vein?
There are countless holidays and special events that aren’t religious and see families and communities coming together.
Some examples in the US because that’s where I have best context: 4th of July, The Superbowl, Memorial Day, Thanksgiving, Halloween, literally any other sporting event, New Years, etc.
Not to mention you also don’t need a religious context to celebrate holidays that originate from religions such as Christmas, St. Valentine’s day, Easter, etc.
Except happiness. Which according to the Pew Research Center is more common among the religious, for whatever reason.
This makes sense when you see it in the context in which Pew gathered that data, being in a country (the USA) that prioritizes special treatment towards the religious, most especially Christians.
There’s also aspects such as false hope given to the religious, the gaslighting in religion to accept one’s shitty circumstances, etc.
Our ancestors had a mind tailored for survival. Religion exploits this.
Virtually all organized religions put heavy emphasis on life after death. This is because religion’s main appeal, most especially to those in environments with high death rates, is the promise of eventual safety and peace in eternity.
Problem is, most of those religions immediately become tools of manipulation where you have to follow a very specific set of rules to get to paradise, or spend eternity suffering in Hell like you’ve never experienced before.
It’s also a tool of control, in that people who are being made to live painful, miserable lives, are told that they can live for eternity in paradise.
You’re correct about Abrahamic religions but ancient polytheistic/pagan religions and current day Eastern and Dharmic religions often do not discuss life after death. Many do not believe there is only one life but instead there are multiple cycles through which a soul can exist. There is a concept of Nirvana/Enlightenment, which one could say is a type of heaven, but hell is essentially reliving life on Earth with progressively more hardship and struggle if you choose to live poorly.
Now Abrahamic religions do have the most followers, partly because monotheism is highly compatible with centralization and authoritarianism. It enforces conformity which makes it very effective at organizing people. Polytheistic or nontheistic religions (often Eastern) need to be much more flexible. Centralization has been a point of contention within even monotheistic religions with the Protestant split from the Catholic church for example.
Religion has more to it then a population control though. It does give people a sense of meaning and there have always been infights to challenge the power of the priestly class who act as gatekeepers to spiritual meaning and purpose.
In general, agreed. Anyone that is religious and tolerant or supportive is absolutely an exception to the rule of religion. I have mostly religious friends, Catholic, even, but I make no mistake in knowing that religion is definitively, fundamentally a hostile force to queer people and anyone not like their most in-group. This has been proven time and time again and is so insidiously structured into doctrine.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
